The last time I checked it was a religious sect that was serving cool aid to it's memebers and lying to them.My question to you ...what about the not very poor,what about the people who are doing the best they can to hang on but don't qualify as "very poor",Sammy what do they do?

It's a very difficult situation. I understand, I've experienced it first hand with my parents. My mom continued to work, just to keep health insurance for my Dad, until Medicare kicked in. My sister and I did what we could at the time to help. Once Medicare kicked in the benefit levels dropped.

By no means do I think the health care system doesn't need reform, it certainly does, and now. But ultimately turing over control of mine and my family's health care to the gov't under a single-payer system, which is Obama's stated goal, is not something I want to see happen.

And all the numbers, taxes/not taxes, FSA, whatever aside, I'm Catholic and there is no way I'll support any legislation, or politician that advocates legislation, that forces a religious affiliated hospital or charity to provide services (sterilization, abortion drug, contraception) that are directly counter to its core beliefs with no avenue for an "opt-out" or religious exemption.

__________________"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.

There is no such thing as free lunch and ultimately everyone pays. The real question is when and how does the piper get paid? Is it through the back-door or through the front-door, or will it be through an unmarked envelope under the table?

Bottom line, there are two things certain in life, death and taxes...the bourgeoisie need to be weary of the mob less they want to end up under the guillotine sooner than desirable.

Agree. You and I differ on when/how the piper is paid, and when/how/if the mob rules, but you are up front about what the ultimate point of Obamacare is no smoke-n-mirrors. Kudos.

__________________"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.

Sammy, you do understand that the Court said Obamacare must fall under the taxing authority of Congress, it did not explicitly state that it was a tax. There's a difference.

There is nothing mutually incompatible about the terms "fee", "penalty" and "tax". Is it a tax. Yes. Is it a penalty? Sure. Is it a fee? Absolutely. It is a cliche of political economics that when governments want to encourage something, they subsidize it; if they want to discourage something they tax it. There is no contradiction there.

I'm pretty sure Roberts said it was a tax hence his support. This whole finessing of the English language is truly absurd...any money collected by the government is by nature a tax.

Sammy, you do understand that the Court said Obamacare must fall under the taxing authority of Congress, it did not explicitly state that it was a tax. There's a difference.

There is nothing mutually incompatible about the terms "fee", "penalty" and "tax". Is it a tax. Yes. Is it a penalty? Sure. Is it a fee? Absolutely. It is a cliche of political economics that when governments want to encourage something, they subsidize it; if they want to discourage something they tax it. There is no contradiction there.

You're very "on message" here, good job. Point is the fed gov't should be encouraging/discouraging behavior a lot less.

I couldn't care less if it's a penalty/tax/fee, ultimately the fed is taking money from me...and yes I completely get that they have the constitutional right to do so. I don't agree so I certainly will be voting for and advocating for those in elected office who will do less encouraging/discouraging (taxing).

My main point was, the Commerce Clause argument is a victory for limiting the feds powers vs. the states.

__________________"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.

Are you saying Romneycare was passed against Mitt Romney's will or what are you saying? And yes, the two plans are damn similar. The president used Romneycare as a template. LOL..so much for conservatism, I guess.

The final version of Romneycare was passed with eight over-ridded Romney vetos of specific sections of the law.

The plans are similar, yet also quite different in scope and goals, read the link I posted it gives a good summary.

__________________"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.

as far as that facebook post... historically, when christianity was starting out, they had a MUCH higher life expectancy than non christians (like 10+ years more) because they took care of their sick, which just wasn't the norm.

__________________ Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!

Not sure how they don't support my position when I didn't state a position. I stated that Fox News was exaggerating and distorting, which they were. They make it to seem that this tax is going to end jobs, stifle innovation, and make health care costs go up that much more. The stuff I posted (one being from somebody within the industry) says otherwise. Also, I really doubt companies are cutting back on R&D right now in response to any taxes. Many companies use stuff like this as a scapegoat so they can be cheap and make more money.

Nevermind taxing and restricting something isn't going to "gain" anything in that field. Both links seem like more of a defense of the Fox story than a rebuttal.

Then you choose to see what you want to see. It's clearly not supporting some of the exaggerations that Fox was making, and it definitely doesn't "seem like more of a defense of the Fox story."

Quote:

The spin is that there will be tremendous job loss and reduction in R&D despite the significant increase in numbers of people covered by healthcare in the United States.

Yet an analysis by The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities takes a very different view. The Center is a think tank founded in 1981 to analyze federal budget priorities. It describes itself as nonpartisan, but it has a focus on fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals. That probably constitutes a bias in today's red-hot partisan environment.

Quote:

Tax Will Not Shift Employment Offshore

Despite claims to the contrary, the excise tax creates no incentive whatever for medical device manufacturers to move production overseas. The tax applies to imported as well as domestically produced devices. Thus, sales of medical devices in the United States will be equally subject to the tax whether they are produced here or abroad, and the tax will not make imported devices any more attractive to domestic purchasers.

In addition, devices produced in the United States for export are exempt from the tax, so it will not reduce the competitiveness of U.S.-made devices in international markets. Making a tax-free sale for export is straightforward, and the administrative burden of securing an exemption is small. The device manufacturer and the U.S. exporter will register with the IRS (foreign purchasers of articles for export need not register), and the U.S. exporter must simply provide its registration number to the manufacturer and certify that the devices will be exported.[9]

A much-cited 2011 study financed by AdvaMed, an industry trade association, alleges that the tax would cause 10 percent of device manufacturing to move offshore, leading to the loss of 43,000 U.S. jobs.[10] Analysis by Bloomberg Government, however, finds that the study “is not credible.” Its assumptions, Bloomberg concludes, “conflict with economic research, overstate companies’ incentives to move jobs offshore, and ignore the positive effect of new demand created by the [health reform] law.”[11]

Quote:

Tax Will Have Little Effect on Innovation

The excise tax also will likely have very little effect on innovation in the medical device industry, despite claims to the contrary. The consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers has identified five pillars of medical technology innovation: financial incentives, human and physical resources, a favorable regulatory climate, demanding and price-insensitive patients, and a supportive investment community.[19] Each pillar comprises more than a dozen separate factors, and the tax rate is just one of the many factors affecting financial incentives.
The rate of innovation in medical technology has slowed in recent years for reasons entirely unrelated to the excise tax. “Like Big Pharma, which introduced many ‘me too’ drugs,” writes The Economist, “device companies have sustained themselves by making small improvements to existing products. Spending on R&D has so far failed to yield many truly innovative devices.”

Health reform may well spur medical-device innovation by promoting more cost-effective ways of delivering care. As PricewaterhouseCoopers observes:

Government pressure to lower healthcare costs could . . . forc[e] developed nations to turn to innovative technology to achieve better results at lower costs. In the United States, for example, the [ACA] calls for reduced annual payment updates for most Medicare services, substantial cuts to managed care plan payments, and the creation of an Independent Payment Advisory Board. These are small steps in what will be a prolonged and complex effort by Western nations to rein in healthcare costs.[20]

Sure, the author from the first link does express some concern for small businesses.

Quote:

All of that being said, there is room for improvement in how the medical device tax is assessed. Small companies that are often engines for important innovations need more protection from the tax. Any potential impact of the tax on R&D in the United States needs to be rethought and changed. Medical innovation is a powerful resource of the United States and a growing pillar of our economy.

__________________ "So let me get this straight. We have the event of the year on TV with millions watching around the world... and people want a punt, pass, and kick competition to be the halftime entertainment?? Folks, don't quit your day jobs."- Matty

Oh my god, are you really going to argue semantics now? Jobs being shipped overseas is jobs lost in America. They'd have to lay off people in America just to give jobs to somebody overseas. It's job loss.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Which agrees with the Fox article. What did they "distort" or "exaggerate" in this case?

No, it doesn't. Him sharing a concern isn't him agreeing with Fox.

Quote:

The spin is that there will be tremendous job loss and reduction in R&D despite the significant increase in numbers of people covered by healthcare in the United States.

In other words, he's saying that this tax isn't going to matter really because the number of people covered by the new health insurance which will ultimately increase revenues!!!! Significant increase is the actual word he used.

Here is exactly what Fox said.

Quote:

Several companies have already responded to the looming tax by cutting research and development budgets and laying off workers.

No. No way companies are laying off people or cutting R&D due to the looming tax. If anything, they are using this as an excuse like many companies like to do. Hrmm...how do I cut my work force, and push the extra work onto others without looking like the bad guy? Oh, I know, I'll just claim this new tax is going to kill my profits!!

Since you want to argue semantics, Fox's title is this "Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013" is misleading and false as well. Notice the word WILL, and not the word COULD. Distorting? Yes. Misleading? Yes. False? Yes.

There are many medical devices that aren't being taxed. So this tax isn't going to affect everybody's wallet. Not everybody will need to buy a medical device that's being taxed. Hey, not according to Fox!!

Source2:

Quote:

Spending on taxable medical devices represents less than 1 percent of total personal health expenditures, so a small increase in their price would have an almost imperceptible effect on health insurance premiums.

Listen, we aren't going to agree on this, so you keep believing Fox and I'll chose not to. That we can agree on.

__________________ "So let me get this straight. We have the event of the year on TV with millions watching around the world... and people want a punt, pass, and kick competition to be the halftime entertainment?? Folks, don't quit your day jobs."- Matty

Oh, what does Obama's proposal to raise taxes, which he's not, have to do with Affordable Care Act? These are two distinctly different pieces of legislation.

I don't want to start a completely different argument in this thread, but...at some point taxes are going to have to go up. So there.

You were arguing in your last post against the idea of the Affordable Care Act being another case of redistribution of wealth, and then you say in this post that taxes will have to go up. Which means that all tax payers are having to shoulder the cost of this program. So, me, being a taxpayer who has health insurance will not only continue to struggle to meet my own medical expenses even after insurance has paid its part, but will now have to also shoulder the cost of this for others who are getting gov't sponsored health insurance at a subsidized rate.

You seem to have your own interpretation of the rules, especially regarding the individual mandate. The mandate isn't specifically for low income people neither do ALL in the pool of 30 million qualify to receive a tax credit.

It's what I said earlier. Not all will qualify to receive the tax credit. Those who don't will be covered under Medicaid, and those who refuse will have to pay a penality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12thMan

The Supreme Court's ruling said, the federal gov't under Obamacare cannot dictate to states whether to accept Medicaid funding. Essentially, that's the only portion of the law that was more or less struck down.

Right. And I'm saying states will probably wind up going along with the medicaid extension program anyway, because the federal government is footing the bill for the next several years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Right now the federal government pays for about 57% of total Medicaid costs. That's even before we start debating whether "Obamacare" is a good or bad idea. Medicaid eligibility varies from state to state. Some states have a vastly more complex healthcare delivery system than others. State run hospitals, university hospitals, and other network providers are absorbing the costs and looking toward the state for reimbursement. In other words, states defray costs and foot the bill for covering the uninsured. When times are lean, Medicaid is the typically the first program to see the axe and have eligibility requirements change. The new law, "Obamacare", says you can't change those eligibility requirements for Medicaid. Cut your budgets elsewhere. See where this is going? Now we can debate the merits of Medicaid, but to call it socialized medicine is not the case.

Yes, it's more government. More relaxed Medicaid requirements equals more getting on medicaid, which equals higher taxes to cover the costs, which means states having to eventually cut their budgets in other areas of need, which means more job loss.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Lastly, I couldn't care less which party get's credit. The facts are the facts. A Democrat passed healthcare reform. Had it been Reagan, Bush, or Roy Rogers I'd acknowledge that.

You were arguing in your last post against the idea of the Affordable Care Act being another case of redistribution of wealth, and then you say in this post that taxes will have to go up. Which means that all tax payers are having to shoulder the cost of this program. So, me, being a taxpayer who has health insurance will not only continue to struggle to meet my own medical expenses even after insurance has paid its part, but will now have to also shoulder the cost of this for others who are getting gov't sponsored health insurance at a subsidized rate.

Federal tax rates are at a 30 year low. Revenues are the lowest we've seen in years. Yes, taxes need to go up. Not because of Obamacare, but for the sake of our fiscal future.

As far as the bold portion of your statement, guess what, you and I are footing the bill right now for those without insurance every time they make an emergency room visit. You know that, right? I haven't seen one healthcare economist or insurance industry study that says your healthcare premiums will get jacked up to pay for someone else's healthcare plan. If you can show me ONE independent study reflecting that, I'm all ears.

You seem to either think or imply that I'm saying taxes need to go up to cover the costs of Obamacare. The healthcare law, by and large, pays for itself and is projected to be deficit neutral. I can't make that any more clear.